4 Questions

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Sonart, Nor can you use the authority of the government to promote religion. And again, would you allow your child's teacher to wear a swastika around their neck?

And an individual excersising their rights is the government promoting there rights how?

Yes I would allow my childs teacher to wear a swastika. Why try to prove a point by trying ( :rolleyes: ) to scare someone? Scare tactics do not change the facts.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, m3talsmith: Thank you, Thank you. Especially as you are a teacher, your bring intelligent reasoning to this issue. :) :)

Thank you. I'm not sure how well I do but I try my best. Also I've rarely had a reason to argue with your reasoning so I pass the same compliment to you. :)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nor can you use the authority of the government to promote religion. And again, would you allow your child's teacher to wear a swastika around their neck? And an individual excersising their rights is the government promoting there rights how? [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-m3talsmith,
Yes I would allow my childs teacher to wear a swastika. Why try to prove a point by trying ( :rolleyes: ) to scare someone? Scare tactics do not change the facts.[/quote]

I am not sure the swastika is a good example the Nazis and the symbol is banned in most civilized countries for crimes against humanity. The ban is strongest in public institutions.

Religious symbols and attire worn in public places is a more sensative and real issue. The wearing of Jewish, Moslem, Christian and other symbols and attire is currently in a controversial debate in many countries. The problem is these religions are often involved in controversy and conflict, which can create problems in schools and other public institutions.

Required religious attire should probably be allowed, where the wearing of symbols could be controled with out restricting the presons right to believe and worship as he choses. What ever laws that are adapted should be consistent.

[Sonart]

I am not sure the swastika is a good example the Nazis and the symbol is banned in most civilized countries for crimes against humanity.

Why? We supposedly enjoy the same freedom of speech as we do religion. Have we determined that one bit of free expression is bad because most of us disagree with it, while another is good because most agree?

[PhanthomOps]

Sonart:
Quote: "We're getting nowhere on this."

I would have to agree :) However, in-as-much as you said the United States government is propagating a religion, I ask which one??????????

m3talsmith:
Quote: "Thank you. I'm not sure how well I do but I try my best. Also I've rarely had a reason to argue with your reasoning so I pass the same compliment to you. :)"

IMHO you are doing very well. However, there may be a time when we may not agree. Be that as it may, should that time ever arise, I am confident that it will be a reasonable, and respectful one. :) :)

Sonart:
Quote: "Why? We supposedly enjoy the same freedom of speech as we do religion. Have we determined that one bit of free expression is bad because most of us disagree with it, while another is good because most agree?"

Let's look at the swastika for a moment.
Yes you have the right, however, are you of the mind that you want to incite one to anger?? A few of the young people I saw wearing a jacket with swastika on it were hastled by Jewish decendants whose close relative were victims of the nazi death camps. Although, I do not approve of their physical actions, I do however, understand why they acted the way they did.

[Sonart]

you said the United States government is propagating a religion, I ask which one??????????

Whether it's one religion or ALL religions that are based on the belief in God, it doesn't matter, they are 'religion', and by being included - by federal law - as official public school activity, they are being officially sanctioned over ALL those that do not believe in God.

Yes you have the right, however, are you of the mind that you want to incite one to anger??...with swastika on it were hastled by Jewish decendants...

And maybe I'm a Muslim student who's brother was beaten up the day before by a bunch of Christians telling him to 'go home Osama'. Who's to say what symbols inspire anger or resentment or fear.

But, I'll be perfectly honest by saying that if it were me I would not be offended by a teacher wearing a crucifix, so let me step back for a second and try to approach this from a different direction.

I live in San Diego, and on the north end of the city, by La Jolla, we have the tallest hill in the city, Mount Soledad, and atop Mt. Soledad is a large white cross. Now it's been there for as long as I can remember and I've always been rather fond of it, simply as a landmark. When our family would return from trips up north it was a friendly signal that we were back home. In addition, because of the view, it was a bit of a lover's lane. It also happened to be on city owned property.

Several years ago, a Jewish man sued the city to have it removed, declaring that the city government could not sponsor a religious symbol. Well, needless to say, San Diego's Christian community went nuts and it's been an ongoing controversy for the last 10 years. The city eventually sold to land to a private group in an effort to solve it that way. (the only time I actually got a bit angry was when the Christions declared that it was a war memorial rather than a religious symbol. Sorry, but there's all kinds of non-Christian vets who gave their all for our country and a Christian cross is NOT a one-size-fits-all memorial)

Anyway, my point is that up until the lawsuit it had never even occurred to me that the cross should be removed. But once there was a lawsuit, I had to sadly agree that he was right, and the city had no place promoting the Christian faith on public property ostensibly owned by all of us.

And the same for the teacher with the crucifix. Sure, let them wear it if they like. But if a non-Christian parent shows up and says her daughter is offended or intimidated by her teacher's apparent endorsement of one faith over others, then the school staff will simply have to sigh deeply and say ok, sorry, didn't mean to offend and we'll make sure they don't wear it again.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Sonart, And the same for the teacher with the crucifix. Sure, let them wear it if they like. But if a non-Christian parent shows up and says her daughter is offended or intimidated by her teacher's apparent endorsement of one faith over others, then the school staff will simply have to sigh deeply and say ok, sorry, didn't mean to offend and we'll make sure they don't wear it again.

I'm know that you would be well meaning in this.

However I've found that evetually it boils down to the lowest common denominator: we can't do anything with substance because we might offend someone somewhere. That's how Political Correctness became vogue. It's simply impossible IMO to not offend at least one person (Hell I've done it ton's of times in these forums by pure accident.)

[Sonart]

Sorry... accidently posted this before I'd finished and then left work for home... stand by for the rest.

Y'know, Metalsmith, I keep hearing folks saying that 'In God We Trust' is our nation's motto. It's not. Our nation's motto is written on the Great Seal of the United States... E Pluribus Unum. From Many, One. From many states, one state. From many nationalities, one nation. From many races, one people. And from many religions, respect for all faiths and preference for none.

The thing is, for the longest time in our nation's history, the promises of freedom, opportunity and equality written in our founding documents were just so much empty bullshit. How could all men be created equal when we could deny basic rights to non-whites, women or non-Christians. Heck, next door to my city of San Diego is the beautiful and exclusive community of La Jolla, where, up until 1963, it was AGAINST THE LAW for a Jew to own property within the town limits.

And this was all 'Politically Correct'. Up until the 50's and 60's it was quite politically correct to deny a black or an Asian or a latino an education, a job, property or even an equal vote. Up until the 70's it was politically correct to deny a woman an equal education, equal opportunity or even simple legal protections such as the right to get a loan, get insurance, buy property or any number of things. We're now going through the agonizing process of getting over the politically correct idea that gays can be discriminated against whenever we like simply because of the way they were born. And the last politically correct idea that has to go away is that Christians are entitled to display their superiority and dominance as they see fit.

Something I keep hearing in the Gay Marriage issue is that gays are trying to do away with America's traditions and values. Well, I will remind you that America's traditional values used to include the right to lynch blacks and keep them uneducated and segregated. It was America's traditional values that women could be denied even the most basic equalities with men. And it was America's traditional values that Jews, Catholics or any other religion could be denied equal rights as citizens.

So now one of the last politically correct barriers to break down is that Christians are entitled to feel superior and any non-Christian who doesn't like it is a whiner. As an atheist I've spent a lifetime being put down, vilified and insulted and then told that I shouldn't be offended. Well it's time for me to say very loud and clear that I have been VERY offended and that I've frigging had enough!

It's gawdamn time for Christians to learn to not be offended when someone informs them - you - that we do NOT see you as gawd's gift to the world and the focus of all that's good and right and wonderful in the universe.

So just get over it and back off. Your Christian political correctness is over.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Sonart, Y'know, Metalsmith, I keep hearing folks saying that 'In God We Trust' is our nation's motto. But it's not. Our nation's motto is written on the Great Seal of the United States... E Pluribus Unum. From Many, One. From many states, one state. From many nationalities, one nation. From many races, one people. And from many religions, respect for all faiths. The thing is, for the longest time in our nation's history, the promises of freedom, opportunity and equality written in our founding documents were just so much bullshit. How could all men be created equal when we could deny basic rights to non-whites, women or non-Christians. Heck, next door to my city of San Diego in the beautiful and exclusive community of La Jolla, it was AGAINST THE LAW

I agree totally Sonart; and not many people voice this! What I speak of is simply about the complete complexity of trying not to offend someone.

It's very hard not to offend people. I like the idea of trying not to get offended better. I think actually it comes down to a mix of both. If you care for those around you, you will naturally be conscious of what is offensive and you will try not to be offended by those around you.

[Serenity9978]

Originally posted by Sonart, Anyway, my point is that up until the lawsuit it had never even occurred to me that the cross should be removed. But once there was a lawsuit, I had to sadly agree that he was right, and the city had no place promoting the Christian faith on public property ostensibly owned by all of us.

I, too, live in San Diego and am familiar with the Mt. Soledad controversy. Although I never really thought about it either until the whole lawsuit thing came up, you're right in that they had no business promoting Christian faith on public property. I'm not a strongly religious person in any case so the symbol doesn't offend or incite awe in me but I think people would have issues were it to be a pentagram or even a Star of David, so I don't see why the Christian cross should be treated any differently.

[Technosoul]

1. I think you could wear such a necklace because it is part of your personal dresswear, and not something the school district told you to wear as some sort of uniform representing the school. Schools are made up of people from all walks of life, some might wear Islamic head wear, some might wear a cross, some might wear some other symbol, unknown to some many necklaces have symbols on them that were once used to mean something to some religion or belief system. I do not think a teacher should wear a T-Shirt saying "Jesus loves you" or something too aggressive. Kids are not allowed to wear "gang colors" in urban parts. And so it might be wise not to wear anything that you know would cause someone else to resent you or that might provoke hate crimes.

2. (trying to remember all the questions so this might not be in order.

But here is the following. We do not want to be like China were everyone must dress the same and look the same as a statement of one-class status. Freedom is also about having a wide selection and being your self as an individual, which would in some degree what you are as a religious person, or as a secular person. The constitution was not designed to totally censor religion. Schools are funded by tax money but they do not make laws nor do schools make any policy that would be viewed as a branch of governmental authority.

I do not think Congress can pass a law that one religion rules - but they certainly did not print "In a Goddess with Trust" on our money. Perhaps they should print money for everyone. In Buddha we trust. In Mother Nature we trust. In Joesph Smith we trust. and so forth? But they do not.

Things happened that way because until about the 1960s most people in America were not aware of most other religions - within the mainstream of voters.
they only knew two choices - Christian or Pagan. (and Jewish, of course).

I think if a community has enough people who want to hold a pagent or Christmass event, or a "day of the dead" (Mexico) event, then let them party hardy. And if it is a community event no reason not to use community equipment or poperty for that purpose. It is part of our culture, so if China town wants dragons - let them use the (governmental) public streets for their parades, as long as each and every community has the same rights. If they want to name a street after our religious preacher man Martin King Jr, so be it.

PS, should we allow some church to ring bells that invade public air space at schools? You see, why get extreme, live and let live.

Technosoul.

[kharmajunkie]

If you can't wear a crucifix then I shouldn't be able to wear a cubs hat. Your sense of fashion and religious expression is none of their concern. Allow.

The paegent isn't costing the town money and using a space doesn't violate "church&state" issues assuming that booking space is open to all groups. Allow.

#3 obviously not.
#4 it's not the government's job to tell someone how/if/when to pray.

[ImAlwaysRight]

This thread is five pages long an nobody is any closer to agreeing on the meaning of the following words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof."

Actually, it's not deciphering the literal meaning that's the problem. There is nothing inherent to those two clauses (the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause) that is even slightly contradictory. They were intended to harmoniously support one another with the purpose of protecting individual conscience about religion from government coersion.

The problem lies in the fact that so many people(particularly Supreme Court Justices) have presumptuously attached "meanings" to that plainly worded statement that were never intended to be there. As such, different courts at different times under different circumstance have twisted and tortured these words out of existence in any real sense, such that all we have left is a vague, malleable, and imprecise notion of what we think the "spirit of the law" ought to be at any given time. On this point, everyone has differing ideas depending on which interpretation best fits their own agenda.

This process of deconstruction is openly encouraged by many who view the constitution as a "living, breathing document" - that it means whatever 9 Justices say it means in a given circumstance. Whereas, strict constitutionalists believe that the Judiciary has overstepped it's bounds in reading meanings into it - that the constitution ought to be taken literally.

The problem with the notion of a "living constitution" is that as courts take liberties with the meanings of different parts, it is inevitable that contradictions between these differing interpretations will emerge, rendering the constitution internally inconsistent - pitting one clause against another. Such is the case with the tortured First Amendment.

Question 3 is the only one in which the Establishment Clause has any bearing. Yet, by simply stretching the meaning of that clause to equate it with this imprecise notion of "separation of church and state" then further stretching the notion of "separation of church and state" to mean "no interaction between government institutions or propery and any religious activity whatsoever", we are left pondering absurd questions as to the constitutionality of a teacher wearing a piece of religious jewelery.

The only way to answer these question is to go back to the original language - which I will do in my next post.

[ImAlwaysRight]

I will dispense with question 3 up front since it is obviously a direct violation of even the literal wording Establishment clause and is, therefore, unconstitutuional.

As for questions 1,2, and 4, notice what they all have in common. They all come down to the question of whether or not a person or group has the right to exercise their religious beliefs in some circumstance in which public resources are either directly or indirectly involved. So what are the arguments on both sides and how reasonable are their interpretations with respect to the wording of the First Amendment?

Those who say that these thing should not be allowed argue that to do so violates the Establishment clause. The problems with this, as I see it, are many.

It is, on the face of it, quite absurd to argue that a teacher wearing a cross, or a muslim using a public PA system, is tantamount to Congress establishing a religion. In order for there to be a violation of the First Amendment, Congress must first make a law that either has the effect of Establishing an official state religion , or it must prohibit someone's freedom to exercise their religion.

In all of these cases, it is a wild leap of logic to claim that the government is legally "establishing religion" by merely doing what the constitution requires - which is to permit people to freely exercise their religion. You see, by perverting the Establishment clause in this way, they have actually set up a situation in which the only way(in their minds) to avoid violating their strained interpretation of it is to directly violate the literal letter of the Free Exercise clause. Having created a false conflict between the two, they simply declare that the Establishment clause takes precedence over the Free Exercise clause without giving any reason for this. But they ignore the fact that the "conflict" exists only because they have taken such liberties with their specious interpretation of the Establishment clause.

To tell a teacher she can't wear a cross, or tell a group they can't have a Christmas Pageant on public property precisely because these are religious exercises comes much closer to violating the letter of the Free Exercise clause than allowing these things comes to violating the Establishment clause.

Secular activities( or jewelry) would be protected without debate under the auspices of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Religious activities too are protected by Free Speech and Assembly. But the Founding fathers went one step further in the protection of religious liberties giving us the Free Exercise clause which explicitly singles out religious freedom for extra protection. But the courts have twisted it in such a way as to explicitly single out religion for expulsion from any public forum or setting. Indeed, these questions would not even be up for debate but for the fact that they involve religious activity.

For example, there's Bush's "controversial" faith based initiatives proposal to allow faith based charities and programs to compete for public resources alongside secular programs. Though they would never admit that this is what they are doing, the opponents of this plan prefer to explicitly discriminate against religious programs precisely because of their religious identity. Why should religious organizations be singled out for exclusion? Why should a Heart necklace be allowed but a Cross is not? Why should a production of Alice in Wonderland be allowed, but a Christmas pageant is not allowed? Why should PA systems be allowed for secular announcements while Religious announcements are off limits?

In none of these cases is anyone's religious freedom being enhanced in any way. To the contrary, they only serve to treat religious activities as less worthy of public protection than secular activities. There is no other word for this than DESCRIMINATION - and it is the exact opposite of the "spirit" of the First Amendment.